Mutation Entry Does Not Confer Any Right, Title Or Interest In Favor Of Any Person

Name of the Case

Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Key Takeaways

• The Additional Commissioner of Rewa had passed order on the basis of a will produced by the petitioner which was set aside by the MP High Court.
• The Court placed reliance on several previous judgments and held that mutation entry is purely for fiscal purposes of collecting land revenues.
• It does not give any rights to the person and for mutation an appropriate Court should be approached.

Background

• On the basis of a will provided by the petitioner, the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, directed to change his name in the revenue records.
• The order was set aside by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the petitioner was directed to approach the appropriate Court to get his rights crystallised after which he approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.

Referred Cases

Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh

• Property mutation in revenue records does not create or extinguish title to the property, nor does it have any presumptive value on title.
• Such entries important only for the purpose of collecting land revenue.

Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner

• A person whose name appears in the record-of-rights does not have title because of an entry in the revenue records.

Court’s Observation

• The Supreme Court stated that the recording of mutation in a revenue record is specifically for fiscal purposes and does not give any right, title, or interest to a person.
• If there is a dispute over the title when the mutation entry is sought on the basis of the will, the party claiming right on the basis of the will must first go to the appropriate Court and have his rights crystallized, and only then can the necessary mutation entry be made based on the Court’s decision.

Do you think recording mutation is just for fiscal purposes? Tell us in the comments section below!